Cc Vs. Dayal Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Cc vs Dayal Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad Decided Nov 21, 2007

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46497

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/46497
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Judge: V T M.
Decided On: Nov 21, 2007
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Respondent

Dayal Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2008)(127)ECC95

Excerpt

.....permitted the assessee to produce of another certificate from the same chartered accountant.5. the department is aggrieved that the commissioner (appeals) should not have admitted the additional evidence as it is against the provisions of rule 5 (2) customs (appeals) rules, 1982. it was also contended that the original authority has also not checked up the back-up documents such as balance sheet, book of accounts etc. to come to the conclusion that the duty incidence has not been passed on to any other person. these grounds are not sustainable in the present facts of the case. the original authority gave a decision in favour of the assesse, based on the certificate of chartered accountant. the commissioner (appeals), has not taken any additional evidence behind the back of the original authority. he has only taken certain clarifications to the certificate already issued by the chartered accountant, which was held to be in favour of the assessee by the original authority. therefore, the appeal of the department no.c/114/07 is liable to be rejected.6. as regards c/136/07, the same relates to the decision of the original authority dt. 5.1.07, ordering recovery of the refund sanctioned by his predecessor by his order dt. 13.12.05. his order in recovering of the refund is not only against the order of the predecessor original authority but also contrary to the decision of the commissioner (appeals), which was in force. the commissioner (appeals) by his order dt. 10.3.07 has merely followed his earlier order dt.24.1.07 which stands upheld by tribunal by rejecting their appeal no.c/114/07 as recorded earlier. therefore, this appeal is also liable to be rejected.

Full Judgment

2. The Appeal No. C/114/07 is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 05/JMN/2007, dt. 24.1.07, upholding the decision of the original authority, dt. 13.12.2005 sanctioning refund of Rs. 90,684/-to the respondent.

The Appeal No. C/136/07 is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 34/JMN/2007, dt. 10.3.07, by which he allowed the appeal by the party against the order of the original authority dt.5.1.07, by which the original authority ordered recovery of refund earlier sanctioned vide order dt. 13.12.05 by his predecessor.

3. There is a request for adjournment on behalf of the respondent which is being rejected. Heard the learned DR on behalf of the Department.

4. There is no dispute that the refund is due on merit. The original authority while sanctioning the refund on 13.12.05 held that the bar of unjust enrichment will also not apply and sanctioned the refund. He had relied on the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant for coming to the above conclusion. The department filed an appeal against the order of the original authority and the Commissioner (appeals) concurred with the decision of the original authority and for this purpose, he permitted the assessee to produce of another certificate from the same chartered accountant.

5. The department is aggrieved that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have admitted the additional evidence as it is against the provisions of Rule 5 (2) Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. It was also contended that the original authority has also not checked up the back-up documents such as balance sheet, book of accounts etc. to come to the conclusion that the duty incidence has not been passed on to any other person. These grounds are not sustainable in the present facts of the case. The original authority gave a decision in favour of the assesse, based on the certificate of chartered accountant. The Commissioner (Appeals), has not taken any additional evidence behind the back of the original authority. He has only taken certain clarifications to the certificate already issued by the chartered accountant, which was held to be in favour of the assessee by the original authority. Therefore, the appeal of the Department No.C/114/07 is liable to be rejected.

6. As regards C/136/07, the same relates to the decision of the original authority dt. 5.1.07, ordering recovery of the refund sanctioned by his predecessor by his order dt. 13.12.05. His order in recovering of the refund is not only against the order of the predecessor original authority but also contrary to the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), which was in force. The Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dt. 10.3.07 has merely followed his earlier order dt.

24.1.07 which stands upheld by Tribunal by rejecting their appeal No.C/114/07 as recorded earlier. Therefore, this appeal is also liable to be rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahme... Same Parties Cc vs Dayal Steels Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge V T M.